In their article Ruscio et al. (Ruscio, Seaman, D'Oriano, Stremlo, & Mahalchik, this issue) present a comparative study of some of the different variants of the "h" index. The study evaluates a total of 22 metrics, including the "h" index and "h"-type indices, as well as other conventional measures. The novelty of their work is to a large extent based on the proposed criteria presented for evaluating the bibliometric measures. Specifically, Ruscio et al. evaluate the various indices using five criteria, ranging from their ease of understanding to their validity. Although there are many other "h"-type indices not included in the specific selection of measures, the paper includes the majority of the most important "h"-type indices that have appeared in the recent literature. In summary, the current study adds to the important discussion taking place in recent years on the issue of which measures to use for assessing scientific performance from the large pool of indices devised. It is clear by now that there are very important problems related, on the one hand, to the bibliometric analysis of individual researchers and, on the other (more specifically), to the use of "h"-type indices at this level of analysis. The commentators believe that the current as well as similar studies, reinforce the idea that using only one or two indicators, both traditional and more modern, is always inadequate for the research assessment of individuals. Although the "h"-type indicators are better in comparison to the number of articles or the citations received, it is still recognized that the "h" index and the "h"-type indicators have strong intrinsic problems and limitations. Distinction between the 2 basic dimensions of scientific performance, namely, quantity and quality of scientific output, is only possible for some of the proposed modern indices. However, for the majority of them, there is no clear categorization into a single dimension. Of course, some indices, the "g" index for instance, manage to describe more than one dimension in comparison to others. Nevertheless, usually the final conclusion deduced from such analyses is that most of the (more complicated) alternatives do not really make much difference and that--if one wants to use this type of indicator--one should stick to the original "h" index (or the "g" index). Among the advantages of the "h" index is its simplicity and ease of calculation. There are a number of situations, however, in which the "h" index may provide misleading information about a scientist's output. There are also a lot of voices arguing that scientific impact is a multidimensional notion that cannot be effectively reduced to a single indicator. Measuring the research performance of a scientist by using only his or her bibliometric data is already more or less restrictive by default, let alone by measuring the citation performance with only a single one of the metrics available.